We are
writing to oppose this application.
Most, if not
all the conditions the applicant is seeking to remove or modify, were imposed
only this year after the committee had heard and seen evidence of appalling
scenes of noise, disorder and drunkenness resulting from the trading at these
premises. The police also gave evidence of drug dealing over an extended period
of time for which successful criminal prosecutions had been brought.
The
imposition of these new conditions has created a significant improvement in the
level of nuisance generated by the operation of these premises.
Given the
relative success of these conditions we are very concerned to see the
management of these premises seeking to have them removed or made less
effective.
A brief visit
to their social media site shows that the re-branded Zero Zero primarily targets
young people and does this on the basis of cheap drink offers. A sample offer
from their Facebook site being:
✚ £1
Smirnoff & Red Bull (Before Midnight)
✚ £1 BOMBS
ALL NIGHT
✚ £2.50
Corona Beer or £10 for bucket of 5
✚ £3 House
Doubles
We are particularly
concerned about the emphasis on cheap bombs and mixture of spirits with high
caffeine drinks as these are frequently associated with drunkenness and
disorder.
The
information provided on the web site is very limited, but as we understand it the
applicants are seeking to:
1. Lift
capacity limits based on a risk assessment which they have commissioned. We are
not clear what the basis of this assessment is but we would expect it include:
- risks of drunk customers not being
observed and continuing to be served alcohol
- risks of early signs of disorder being
missed
- risks of injury to customers if disorder
breaks out in a crowded club
-risks of drug dealing being unobserved as
the number of people in the club increases
If it does
not include these things, we would oppose it being used as the basis for
setting capacity limits.
2. Relaxing
the recording conditions around toilet checks and staff training. We believe
these should remain as a component of monitoring the compliance of premises
that have shown such catastrophic failures of management in the recent past.
3. Reducing
the numbers of door staff in attendance. This is a premises which, until these
conditions were imposed, had an appalling track record on keeping good order in
the premises, keeping illegal substances out of the premises and maintaining
order when customers dispersed at the end of trading. We know of no substantive
changes that the premise's management have made which are likely to make up for
the reduction in door staff.
4. Removing
the need to have a female door supervisor. We do not see how adequate checks
can be made for dangerous or illegal substances or objects being brought into
the premises if all door supervisors are male.
5. Removing
the need for staff training to be provided by accredited providers. We can see
no justification for this at all. Alcohol licensing law and practice are
complex and subject to frequent change and this is a premise where in-house
training has in the very recent past demonstrably failed to deliver best or
even adequate practice in this area.